Objective Evidence: An Auditor’s Secret
Weapon
POSTED BY JANE BOLER ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 IN AUDITING | 14,587 VIEWS | 2 RESPONSES
One of the primary objectives of an audit is to collect objective evidence. Not just random
objective evidence, but evidence specific to the requirements in the audit.
By Craig Cochran
Objective evidence is the proof that the organization did or did not meet its requirements.
One of the primary objectives of an audit is to collect objective evidence. Not just random
objective evidence, but evidence specific to the requirements in the audit. The auditor
selects requirements to verify, and then looks for objective evidence that the organization
met the requirements.
Objective evidence has a couple of specific purposes. First, it provides credibility to the
audit process. By keeping evidence of facts gathered during the audit, we can be confident
that an audit actually took place. The auditor didn’t just go through the motions. Real people
were interviewed, actual records were examined, and current processes were analyzed.
Anybody can review the evidence that was gathered and feel confident that the audit was
effective.
Second, the evidence forms the raw material for any nonconformities that result. We’re not
seeking nonconformities, of course—we’re seeking conformity. Despite this goal,
nonconformities are a common outcome of audits. If we collect detailed evidence during the
audit, we’ll be able to write clear and defensible nonconformities. Objective evidence also
helps to write meaningful positive findings. Both of these outputs—nonconformities and
positive findings—rely on accurate and objective evidence gathered by the auditor.
Characteristics of objective evidence
The term objective evidence sounds rather complicated, but it is actually very simple. Here
are the characteristics of objective evidence:





Unbiased: Objective evidence is unbiased. That means it is not clouded by
emotions or feelings. The evidence is gathered in a completely neutral way. Bias
often arises when the auditor has a personal relationship with the person they are
interviewing during the audit. Auditors have to always be aware of how their personal
relationships influence the way they view evidence. If an auditor believes they’re
becoming biased, it is their responsibility to approach the lead auditor or quality
manager and make this known.
Factual: Objective evidence is factual. That means it is real, not made up or
imagined. Very few auditors intentionally create non-factual evidence. It sometimes
happens accidentally when evidence is misinterpreted. This is one of the benefits of
auditing in pairs. When you are with somebody else, you can always ask for their
opinion of the evidence you’re examining. This should keep you in the realm of
factual evidence.
First hand: Objective evidence is first-hand. That means the auditor gets evidence
directly from the source. The evidence is seen, heard, read, or experienced by the
auditor. A good auditor never relies on second or third-hand information, as it is often
distorted. The more hand offs in an information chain, the more distortion exists and
the less the information can be trusted.
Traceable: Objective evidence is traceable. That means you include all the
identifiers about the evidence. Identifiers could include the date, time, part number,
department name, and anything else that lets the organization know where the
evidence came from. In theory, audit evidence should be traceable enough that
anybody could see the same thing that you saw during the audit.
Impersonal: Objective evidence is impersonal. The evidence is written to reinforce a
focus on systems and processes, instead of people. Names are omitted from
evidence and job titles are used instead. No opinions about the severity or possible
impacts of evidence are includedjust the facts are given. The evidence is written in a
neutral, non-accusing manner.
Just because your evidence is subjective doesn’t mean that’s the end of the line. You can
often turn subjective evidence into objective evidence by doing some additional digging.
That’s what is referred to as following an audit trail. You might start out with biased or
second-hand information, and then convert it to objective evidence by asking a few more
questions.
Evidence gathering
Evidence gathering is the heart of auditing. Effective auditors are naturally curious and enter
every audit in a learning state of mind. When you want to learn, your mind will crave
information and your senses will be especially sharp. Very little will escape your detection.
Armed with the desire to expand my own knowledge, I ask probing questions and pursue
unique and important lines of inquiry. You can’t fake the desire to learn. It exists solely
inside your head. There are certain truths that can help put you in this state of mind:

This company is doing a lot of things RIGHT. In today’s extremely competitive
economy, bad companies don’t survive. They dry up and blow away very quickly. If




the company you’re auditing is still in existence, then it must be doing at least a few
things correctly.
The people here are interesting and have some fascinating stories to tell me. I have
found this to be true 100 percent of the time. No matter how banal and
commonplace an organization seems, it will include some people who absolutely
fascinate me. They will have interesting things to tell me and I’ll have a hard time
pulling myself away from them.
I will learn a lot during this audit. There are processes, technologies, and products
here that I’ve never seen before. Yes, I’m here to do an audit, but the benefits of the
audit will flow in both directions. If I’m perceptive, I will learn as much from them as
they will learn from me.
I am a partner of the organization, not an adversary. You’re not looking for
nonconformities; you’re looking for ways that the organization can improve. This is a
subtle but important difference. At no time should an auditor portray the audit as a
sport in which the objective is to rack up nonconformities. The number of
nonconformities is inconsequential. What matters is that the company knows what
they need to focus on.
The evidence I gather should focus on the big picture. Auditing is definitely a process
of details. My task is to accumulate the details into trends that will help the
organization improve. I need to probe beneath the surface and uncover the true
strengths and weaknesses of the organization. I will only be able to do this once the
organization trusts me and understands that I am truly there to help them.
The overall impression that you should give the organization is trust. Every word and
mannerism that you evoke as an auditor should reinforce the idea that you can be trusted.
People who are trying to learn can usually be trusted because learning is a cooperative
process that requires a two-way exchange of information. Be a learner and you will also be
an effective auditor.
About the author
Craig Cochran is the North Metro Regional Manager with Georgia Tech’s Economic
Development Institute. He has assisted more than 5,000 companies since 1999 in QMS
implementation, problem solving, auditing, and performance improvement. Cochran is a
Certified Quality Manager, Certified Quality Engineer, and Certified Quality Auditor through
the American Society for Quality. He is certified as a QMS Lead Auditor through Exemplar
Global.
He is the author of numerous books, including ISO 9001:2015 in Plain English, published
by Paton Professional. His next book, Auditing in Plain English, from which this article was
excerpted, will be released in late 2016.
POSTED IN AUDITING | TAGGED OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE